CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00910
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2023

Matter of Guevara v. Greenvelvet Tree, Inc.

Claimant Wilfredo A. Guevara sustained injuries while employed by Greenvelvet Tree, Inc. The State Insurance Fund (SIF) attempted to cancel the workers' compensation insurance policy covering Greenvelvet Tree, Inc. for nonpayment of premiums. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that SIF failed to properly cancel the policy with respect to Greenvelvet Tree, Inc., thus holding SIF responsible for the claim. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that carriers must strictly comply with Workers' Compensation Law § 54 (5) notice requirements. The court found SIF did not separately serve Greenvelvet Tree, Inc. with the cancellation notice, despite shared corporate interests and address, affirming the continuation of coverage.

Workers' Compensation InsurancePolicy CancellationNotice RequirementsStrict ComplianceEmployer LiabilityAppellate ReviewNonpayment of PremiumsCorporate EntitiesAdditional InsuredStatutory Interpretation
References
6
Case No. ADJ2003862
Regular
Feb 08, 2010

REYES DE SANTIAGO vs. DE SANTIAGO TREE SERVICE, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involves an applicant who sustained industrial injuries, including psychiatric harm, after falling from a tree while trimming it. The applicant had been employed for less than six months at the time of injury. The Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior award, and returned the case for a new decision because the applicant's fall, though sudden, was not considered an "extraordinary employment condition" under Labor Code section 3208.3(d). The majority found that the risk of falling is inherent and routine for a tree trimmer and therefore does not qualify for the exception to the six-month employment rule for psychiatric injuries.

WCABFindings and Award and Orderindustrial injurypsychiatric injuryLabor Code section 3208.3(d)sudden and extraordinary employment conditionQualified Medical Examinersubstantial evidencepermanent disabilityapportionment
References
6
Case No. 2024 NYSlipOp 01760
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 28, 2024

Chua v. Trim-Line Hitech Constr. Corp.

Wilfred Chua and other plaintiffs initiated a class action against Trim-Line Hitech Construction Corp. and J. Kokolakis Contracting, Inc., among others, seeking recovery of prevailing wages and supplemental benefits for construction work performed on publicly-financed projects. The plaintiffs successfully moved for class certification in the Supreme Court, New York County. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the plaintiffs met the prerequisites for class certification under CPLR 901 and 902. The court concluded that a class action was the superior method for resolving the wage dispute, given the potentially insignificant individual damages and high costs of individual litigation.

Class ActionClass CertificationPrevailing WageSupplemental BenefitsLabor LawConstruction WorkWage DisputeAppellate ReviewNumerosityCommonality
References
14
Case No. ADJ9835845
Regular
Oct 03, 2016

DELFINO RAMOS CRUZ vs. SEVENTH TREE TRIMMING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Delfino Ramos Cruz's Petition for Removal. The WCAB affirmed the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge's (WCJ) report, finding that removal is an extraordinary remedy and is only granted for substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, which was not demonstrated. The board concluded that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if an adverse decision is ultimately issued.

Petition for RemovalAppeals BoardWCJ reportsubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmreconsiderationextraordinary remedyCortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10843(a)
References
2
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 07002 [188 AD3d 1524]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 25, 2020

Matter of Walczak v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co.

Claimant Marian Walczak, an arborist, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that deemed his claim for occupational hearing loss untimely. Walczak worked for Asplundh Tree Expert Co. from 1998 to 2006 and filed his claim in 2017, listing the onset of hearing loss as December 27, 2006. The Board found the claim time-barred under Workers' Compensation Law § 28, asserting that Walczak knew or should have known of his hearing loss and its probable work-related cause by January 19, 2012, given his testimony and medical records. The Appellate Division affirmed, emphasizing that specialized medical knowledge is not required to trigger the 90-day limitations period under Workers' Compensation Law § 49-bb, and deference is given to the Board's findings of fact and credibility assessments.

Occupational Hearing LossTime-Barred ClaimWorkers' Compensation Law § 28Workers' Compensation Law § 49-bbStatute of LimitationsDate of DisablementKnowledge of DiseaseMedical Diagnosis Not RequiredAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Board
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McGrath v. Lake Tree Village Associates

Plaintiff, an employee of Deacon, was injured while carrying a scaffold pick on a construction site owned by Lake Tree Village Associates, walking over a dirt pile. Plaintiff sued Lake Tree alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). The Supreme Court denied Lake Tree's motion for summary judgment. The appellate court reversed, finding no evidence Lake Tree exercised control, thus negating liability under Labor Law § 200 or common-law negligence, and also noting no duty to protect against readily observable conditions. Furthermore, the court ruled that OSHA standards do not provide a basis for liability under Labor Law § 241 (6), and most cited Industrial Code provisions were either general, not applicable, or reiterated common-law duties, thus not supporting liability under § 241 (6).

Labor Law § 200Labor Law § 241 (6)Industrial Code ViolationsOSHA StandardsSummary JudgmentConstruction Site InjuryEmployer LiabilityOwner LiabilityGeneral ContractorScaffold Accident
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gonder v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc.

Pharaoh Gonder filed a lawsuit against Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. in New York state court, alleging race discrimination and retaliation under the New York City Human Rights Law. Dollar Tree removed the case to federal court and subsequently moved to dismiss the complaint and compel arbitration, citing an arbitration agreement signed by Gonder upon commencing employment. Gonder disputed the validity and enforceability of the agreement, claiming he did not recall signing it. The court found that Gonder had indeed electronically signed a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement, with the offer of employment serving as sufficient consideration. Furthermore, the court concluded that Dollar Tree had not waived its right to arbitrate through its participation in administrative investigations or the removal to federal court, noting the minimal litigation activity and lack of prejudice to Gonder. Consequently, the court granted Dollar Tree's motion to dismiss and compel arbitration.

Arbitration AgreementEmployment DiscriminationRetaliationFederal Arbitration ActWaiver of ArbitrationElectronic SignatureContract LawMotion to Compel ArbitrationDiversity JurisdictionNew York City Human Rights Law
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dittert v. Oak Tree Farm Dairy, Inc.

Plaintiffs Jason Dittert, Anthony Lombardo, and Walter J. Finn sued Oak Tree Farm Dairy, Inc., for personal injuries sustained during armed robberies while employed by Dairy Barn Stores, Inc. An earlier action against Dairy Barn was dismissed due to Workers' Compensation being the exclusive remedy. Plaintiffs argued Oak Tree was the 'alter ego' of Dairy Barn or a 'joint venturer,' but this claim was also barred by Workers' Compensation Law. On appeal, plaintiffs contended a Dairy Barn District Supervisor, allegedly an Oak Tree employee, breached a duty by failing to order a store closure after a robbery warning. The court determined the supervisor was a co-employee, rendering the action barred by Workers' Compensation Law, and found no proximate cause for the injuries. Consequently, Oak Tree's cross-motion for summary judgment was granted, and the complaint against it was dismissed.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentAlter Ego DoctrineVicarious LiabilityCo-employee DefenseProximate CauseAppellate ProcedureComplaint DismissalEmployer Liability
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Novie

This case concerns the constitutionality of the Village of Montebello's Tree Preservation and Landscape Maintenance Law, under which a defendant was charged for removing trees without a permit. The defendant challenged the law on multiple constitutional grounds including ultra vires, uncompensated taking, due process violations, First Amendment infringement, and equal protection. The Justice Court initially granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the charges. On appeal, the court reversed this decision, upholding the constitutionality of the Tree Law. The court found the law served legitimate governmental purposes, its fees were reasonable, and the defendant's taking and due process claims were not ripe due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The First Amendment and equal protection challenges were also rejected.

Tree Preservation LawConstitutional LawFifth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentDue ProcessTakings ClauseEqual ProtectionFirst AmendmentLocal OrdinancesZoning Law
References
46
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 06842
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 10, 2025

Cerro v. 97 Port Richmond Ave, LLC

Jose Cerro, an employee of Justino Landscaping, Inc., was injured after falling from a ladder while trimming a tree near a garage owned by 97 Port Richmond Ave, LLC, and Frenchies Port Richmond Equities, LLC. Cerro sued, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court denied Cerro's motion for summary judgment on liability and granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, finding that a tree is not a 'building or structure' under the statute and the work was not part of an alteration or renovation. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, concluding that tree-cutting does not fall within the scope of Labor Law § 240 (1).

Ladder fallLabor LawSafe place to workTree cuttingBuilding or structureSummary judgmentAppellate reviewPersonal injuryProperty owner liabilityConstruction safety
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 170 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational